Does anyone seriously believe that when we developed our system of open courts, it was to discriminate against veiled Muslim women?

Or that our legal principle that a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, including the right to face his accuser, was meant to insult Islam?

The obvious answer to both questions is that of course this wasn’t our intention, nor is it the reality.

These principles were developed and upheld over time not to discriminate against anyone, but to protect all citizens, regardless of their backgrounds, from the worst features of dictatorships and totalitarian societies.

That is, closed courts and secret trials, where the defendant never has a right to face his or her accusers, or even to understand the exact nature of the charges he faces.

Which is why it’s so bizarre that our justice system, right up to the Supreme Court of Canada as indicated by Thursday’s decision, continues to twist itself into pretzels over the issue of the niqab.

Indeed, it often seems our institutions are so obsessed with bending over backwards to appear tolerant, that they won’t be satisfied until we all disappear up their politically correct behinds.

Thursday’s split Supreme Court decision on the niqab provides half a loaf to both sides in this never-ending debate.

The judges said the wearing of a niqab by a witness must not be allowed to interfere with the accused’s right to a fair trial, but they did not go so far as to declare an outright ban.

Rather, trial judges will now have to figure out at what point a witness wearing a niqab interferes with the accused’s right to a fair trial.

It’s odd we keep going around in circles on this issue, given that in the West, we generally consider niqabs and burkas to be symbols of the oppression of women.

In fact, this position is shared by many Muslims, including groups like the Muslim Canadian Congress.

The MCC, in fairness, praised the Supreme Court decision as a step in the right direction, although it had hoped for a complete ban on niqabs in courtroom settings.

There’s also the fact many moderate Muslims — the kind we always say we want to work with — argue the wearing of niqabs and burkas is not compulsory in Islam.

That this is a cultural practice rather than a religious commandment, and the Qu’ran itself says only that women should dress modestly.

Yet our courts have made the automatic assumption that this issue involves the right to religious freedom up against the right of the accused to a fair trial.

Finally, requiring a woman to reveal her face while she testifies in court is not the same as compelling her to do so out on the street, or in her everyday life.

Our courts may be open, but they are also controlled settings.

In cases of sexual assault, the identity of the alleged victim is protected from public disclosure.

Photographs are not allowed.

Judges can take other steps to make witnesses feel comfortable that do not violate the principle of open courts.

Instead, we will now have judges trying to determine issues like the sincerity of a witness’ religious belief, in order to decide whether she can testify under a veil.

Does anyone seriously believe that when we developed our system of open courts, it was to discriminate against veiled Muslim women?

Or that our legal principle that a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, including the right to face his accuser, was meant to insult Islam?

The obvious answer to both questions is that of course this wasn’t our intention, nor is it the reality.

These principles were developed and upheld over time not to discriminate against anyone, but to protect all citizens, regardless of their backgrounds, from the worst features of dictatorships and totalitarian societies.